Monday, January 9, 2017


Posted by Tim

- Archbishop Michael Byrnes, THE GUAMANIAN, January-February, 2017

Those who are members of the Neocatechumenal Way who have not consciously embraced teachings contrary to Catholicism can still be considered Catholics. However, in offering the above quote, Archbishop Byrnes essentially makes the same mistake other bishops have made in thinking that because the NCW has an approved statute, that what actually is taught inside the NCW is "Catholic." 

Consider this. In a November 1, 2016 interview given to KUAM, Byrnes admitted to not knowing much about the Neocatechumenal Way and only having "some familiarity, not close." In fact, he even referred to it at one point as a "movement," a "mistake" for which he was immediately chastised by The Diana. Yet Archbishop Byrnes apparently knows enough about the NCW to proclaim it (albeit by extension) "Catholic." 

Compare this bishop to another. 

Not only does Archbishop Athanasius Schneider have a close familiarity with the NCW, he was its episcopal delegate for several years, and as such did his homework on their actual teachings. And Schneider calls the NCW a "Protestant-Jewish community inside the Church with a Catholic decoration only":

This is a very complex and sad phenomenon. To speak openly: It is a Trojan horse in the Church. I know them very well because I was an episcopal delegate for them for several years in Kazakhstan in Karaganda. And I assisted their Masses and meetings and I read the writings of Kiko, their founder, so I know them well. When I speak openly without diplomacy, I have to state: The Neocathecumenate is a Protestant-Jewish[12]community inside the Church with a Catholic decoration only. The most dangerous aspect is regarding the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is the heart of the Church. When the heart is in a bad way, the whole body is in a bad way. For the Neocatechumenate, the Eucharist is primarily a fraternal banquet. This is a Protestant, a typically Lutheran attitude.[13]They reject the idea and the teaching of the Eucharist as a true sacrifice. They even hold that the traditional teaching of, and belief in, the Eucharist as a sacrifice is not Christian but pagan.[14]This is completely absurd, this is typically Lutheran, Protestant. During their liturgies of the Eucharist they treat the Most Holy Sacrament in such a banal manner, that it sometimes becomes horrible.[15]They sit while receiving Holy Communion, and then they lose the fragments because they do not take care of them, and after Communion they dance instead of praying and adoring Jesus in silence. This is really worldly and pagan, naturalistic. 

Bishop Schneider then goes on to point out the NCW's central heresy:

The main idea of the Neocathecumenate according their founder Kiko Argüello is the following: the Church had an ideal life only until Constantine in the 4th century, only this was effectively the real Church. And with Constantine the Church started to degenerate: doctrinal degeneration, liturgical and moral degeneration.[16]And the Church reached the rock bottom of this degeneration of doctrine and liturgy with the decrees of the Council of Trent. However, contrary to his opinion, the opposite is true: this was one of the highlights of the history of the Church because of the clarity of doctrine and discipline. According to Kiko, the dark age of the Church lasted from the 4th century until the Second Vatican Council. It was only with Vatican Council II that light came into the Church. This is heresy because this is to say that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church. And this is really sectarian and very much in line with Martin Luther, who said that until him the Church had been in darkness and it was only through him that there was light in the Church. The position of Kiko is fundamentally the same only that Kiko postulates the dark time of the Church from Constantine to Vatican II. So they misinterpret the Second Vatican Council. They say that they are apostles of Vatican II. Thus they justify all their heretical practices and teachings with Vatican II. This is a grave abuse. 

So, we have two bishops. One, who admits to knowing next to nothing about the NCW who proclaims it "Catholic." And another, with intimate knowledge and experience with it and proclaims its central foundation to be a "heresy." 

I do not believe that Byrnes has arrived with any malice, ill-intent, or, like Hon initially did, with a prescribed agenda to put down the natives. I believe he simply does not know, and that he was selected specifically FOR THAT REASON. 

Prior to his selection, Byrnes was essentially a small-town bishop in a fairly well-to-do part of the Diocese of Detroit. Next thing he knows he's sitting in a marbled Vatican office across from the prefect of a major Vatican congregation, who - unbeknownst (?) to Byrnes, is the NCW's most powerful ally, and who is probably personally shielding Apuron (as well as Luis Camacho, John Wadeson, and now Cristobal.)

One matter that Byrnes can address immediately to allay some of our apprehension is to show some good faith in the matter of the NCW's liturgy. In THE GUAMANIAN article, Byrnes says "I will celebrate the Mass the way the Mass is celebrated." Okay. That's nice to know. We actually have a bishop who will not interrupt the Mass with testimonies from Neocats. But the question is: will Byrnes also demand that the Neocats "celebrate the Mass the way the Mass is celebrated?"

The Neocats and Apuron have publicly proclaimed their right to divorce reception of the Sacred Species from consumption, only consuming the host after all have received and returned to the seated position. In addition, the priest himself delays his communion until the Sacred Species has been distributed. 

There is no allowance for this deviation in the NCW's approved statute, and since the communion rite has been at the center of the debate about the NCW since Cardinal Arinze's December 1, 2005 letter to Kiko (followed by Kiko's public refusal to obey), we have been asking Apuron to provide a clarification on the practice.

A counter on the right side bar shows that, as of today, it has been 2 years and 25 days since Apuron told us that he would provide the document permitting the practice. 

The ball is now in Byrnes' court. He can either provide the document or disallow the practice. Of course there is the third option: simply disobey and continue the scandal. We shall soon see. 


  1. I have listened intently to some of these NCW presbyters recite the Eucharistic prayer "Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God,the almighty Father." which was formulated by the church as pat of the liturgical prayer, yet they still deny the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. If the Eucharist is truly the greatest treasure of the Church, the very life of the church, and the Eucharistic sacrifice the source and summit of the christian life. Then the NCW in their denial of the sacrifici nature of the eucharist are essentially ripping the heart out of the life of the Church. How can Byrnes say that the NCW are catholic? Another case of Byrnes making a proclamation about the NCW without knowing fully what this sect teaches or believes. This is essential and fundamental teaching of what the Holy Eucharist is to catholics.

    1. Bear in mind that the Orate Fratres, was one of the those prayers that was omitted from the NCW for most of its history. It has only been relatively recent that the NCW have had to ensure it is recited. One can guess that the previous omission of this prayer was due to the conflict you have highlighted in your comment. I suppose they recite it through clenched teeth these days?

  2. Archbishop Byrnes sure is a good man in his native detroit. His mission to Guam can't see working. No understanding of previous history so how can he possibly heal a Church. Close down RMS First step.

  3. path to unity is for neo to turn away from their selfishness and serve the people with respect dignity.

  4. My only advice to Archbishop Byrnes is, do not be fooled by lies you will be told about how "Catholic" the NCW is because they are not. Listen to people who have left that organization who sensed they were in a cultish sect that was not Catholic at all. It is all about the money to them to be using our Church's resources while accumulating power and wealth. With Apuron and anyone as weak and corrupt as the head of this archdiocese, they would have succeeded in hiding the evil and filth they brought on this very Catholic community "with seeds sowed in fertile grounds" for over 300 years. Church leaders and the clergy were respected, trusted, and revered. Apuron destroyed that trust and respect when we, the laity, discovered he was corrupt and narcissistic and wantonly squandered our resources for himself and his ass-kissers, and his cabal of weak and corrupt clergymen. The NCW leaders saw an opportunity to use those very traits of Apuron to their advantage to takeover this archdiocese, and methodically worked o. This plan for nearly twenty years. They would have stealthily done so if not for the Faithful laity who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to battle this evil. It took a series of events over the course of several years for the truth about Apuron and the NCW to surface. And the battle ensued to save our local Church. So, Archbishop Byrnes, you should not look "at both sides" to decide what is the best and diplomatic way to deal with this division, mistrust, and loss of respect of the Church leaders and of some in the clergy? There is only one side and that is the side of good vs.evil. Do not discuss this matter with everyone under the sun to see the best way to "can we all just get along?" You must remove the NCW from all the parishes and not allow them to operate within the borders of our Archdiocese. "They are a Jewish-Protestant sect with a Catholic decoration." Do not be fooled. I pray for your enlightenment and success. Do not let us down.

    1. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM

      Thank you, Anon 10:02. I also add the words of writer, professor, political activist, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” In the Archdiocese of Agana, while not the oppressor, the NCW is the aggressor and the violator of our Catholic beliefs and practices. In the case of this archdiocese, for the history outlined by Anon 10:02 (decades before the arrival of Abp Byrnes), to take sides is a requirement in order to move the Church forward.

    2. Yes, and:

      "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

      Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    3. Elie Wiesel, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
      But Elie Wiesel never critizized with one word the outragious behavior of the Israele governements and the worldwide zionist mouvement toward the Palestinians.

    4. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 11, 2017 at 3:57 AM

      Thank you, Daniel. Perhaps Wiesel took the side of the Israeli government’s pro-Zionist movements toward the Palestinians, which could be why he didn’t criticize it. If this were the case, he took a side. It may not be the side you wish he took, but he took a side. The issue here in this thread of comments is not about Wiesel. It is Abp Byrnes’ making known to the local Faithful his position on whether or not the following practices of the local NCW will continue ---- heretical practices of our Eucharist; heretical teachings of some our doctrines; deficient formation of priests in the Yona seminary; the continuance of NCW take-over of the archdiocese; and the continuance of the exclusive, secretive, and cultish nature of the NCW gatherings. Will these practices continue in the Archdiocese of Agana? Take a stand.

    5. I think that we must exercise with Bishop Byrnes patience for some month. This is loyalty in front of a newcomer. If, after a reasanable period, he shows to be a bishop submitted to Cardinal Filoni, Kiko and his own career, then the moment will come to fight against him, not now, please.
      Why was he appointed to come to the last angel of the world, if he was a career Bishop? He cuold do a much better, easier and secure career in his Detroit or USA.
      About the "last angel"; also Betlehem, Nazareth, Assisi, Lisieux was the "last angel of the world, also Jesus! So be happy, and wait! Jésus 30 years, you some month.

  5. How could it be possible for Archbishop Byrnes alone to remedy the problems in our Church when he said so himself that he didn't know of Guam yet, it's problems of years ago have gone unresolved till now. And then he's got (Who?) to report to. It's not just the faithful laity on Guam that's fighting for the return of the tradition way but those too around the world. Every man shall fall on their knees and when that day comes as "Promised" it will be shame.

  6. I believe that the Neo party line on the "permission" centres on Pope Benedict's address to them in January 2012, accompanying the decree for the approval of the "extra-liturgical" celebrations of the NCW contained in their catechetical directory.

    "Diana" has alluded to this many times when "she" claimed that Pope Benedict was the one to give the permission. If you recall, at that time the NCW had been trumpeting that it was expecting the pope to approve the funny things they do in Mass, and this even included trying to pull a fast one on the pope - ultimately thwarted by Cardinal Burke.

    But my suspicion is that this is still the line they run when trying to convince Bishops that they are legit in their liturgical practices. Its probably also the line the senior leaders run with if there are any explanations given to the average NCW member.

    Perhaps there are current or former members out in internet land, that might confirm or otherwise clarify this assumption?

  7. neo cats get worse daily. Cats scratching away in their own muck to save their cat house. Cats living in a cat house.

  8. Byrnes doesn't have the experience needed to handle such a huge, complex mess. He'll pull Rank and do nothing but take orders from Rome.

  9. Dear Archbishop Byrnes:

    The NCW INSIST that Communion be received in the hand. This alone raises a Red Flag. It is totally contrary to the Catholic Church which states Communion on the tongue (the Norm) is NEVER to to denied by any Priest.

    Yet the NCW force their Priests to follow the "design" of Liturgy created by Kiko. And the Priests obey. This is heart-breaking. The NCW have idolized their Leader by refusing to adhere to the approved Statutes (2008) by the Pope. The Eucharist is meant for ALL. As Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus wished, our regular Masses are open to them in the varying degrees of their journey. No one has to feel they need to celebrate separately. Those with Theology degrees with those that are not learned - Those that are Rich with those that are poor - Those that are esteemed with those who feel shunned - Those who are Kings with those who are Shepherds - Those who receive Our Lord on the tongue with those that receive in the hand. Jesus UNITES us all in Holy Communion. Jesus denies no one. Yet, the NCW Mass does.

    Archbishop Byrnes, please help the NCW to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass with the rest of the Church. I'm sure that Saint John Paul II (who stated, in his Eucharistic Encyclical/Redemptionis Sacramentum, that changes to the Liturgy MUST have RECOGNITIO from the Pope) would say to you "Be not afraid; have courage."

    1. apuron out...NO MONEY...apuron OUT...NO MONEY...apuron OUT...

      follow-up to Anonymous January 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM... from the diana on September 8, 2016 at 6:13 PM...

      Dear Eileen,

      We do not hide how we celebrate the Mass in small communities. We have always be truthful about how we celebrate it. First of all, there is no such thing as a "Neo presbyter." I call them RMS priests only because they were formed in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. They are diocesan priests.

      In Holy Communion, we receive the Body of Christ standing up. We do not consume His Body immediately. We are to hold His Body in our hands close to our hearts with adoration. After everyone has received the Body of Christ, the priest proceeds with "Behold, the Body of Christ......" And we respond with "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you......" All the words are the same as it is in the regular Mass. But we consume the Body of Christ together with the priest. And yes, we consume His Body sitting down.

      Yes, you can attend the Saturday night liturgy and not walk in the Way. We had others attend the Eucharist, but they are not walking in the Way. We simply let them know that whatever is said in the echoes cannot be taken out of the room.

      apuron out...NO MONEY...apuron OUT...NO MONEY...apuron OUT...

  10. D. Anthony re yours Jan 10 708 PM

    The NCW only welcomes those who abide by Kiko's rule "Communion in the hand ONLY" and kneeling in adoration of Jesus forbidden. These are Kiko's Rules Only. They are not what comes from the Popes.

  11. To the NCW - do not make Kiko into a god. His instructions in the Mass are against God. Anyone who knows this and still follows "Kiko's way" just to be part of that community perpetuates the problem. The NEO members MUST insist the Priests celebrating the Mass adhere to the approved Liturgical Books. Not to be part of the solution, is to be part of the problem. Neo members could easily attemd the Regular Mass and have their meeting afterwards. It is only pride that refuses to accept correction. Remember that Pride is a Deadly Sin.

  12. Not to allow one to receive the Eucharist on the tongue is anti-Christ.

    1. And a direct violation of Canon Law!

    2. New spelling Cannon Law. Per Diana

    3. LOL!! So he, she or it really is an idiot.

  13. memo to Archbishop Byrnes,

    I'm a senior who depends on a ride to get to Sunday Mass. However, drivers belong to the NCW. If I want to get to Mass with them, I must celebrate the NCW Liturgy.
    I can kneel when they refuse to kneel. I can remain seated when they dance around the Altar where a Sacrifice has just been offered (Sorry, this reminds me of those who danced around the Golden Calf - those who offer their gold to support/build an idol.) I can refuse to echo when others are making inappropriate and sometimes erroneous comments which the priest now has to correct. One thing I cannot do - is receive Our Lord in the Eucharist because they forbid me to receive on the tongue - the Norm which is not supposed to be denied by ANY priest. (Church Law) Communion in the hand is only an indult which a Bishop has the authority to REMOVE. I pray that you will see the division that this Mass has caused. May we be ONE.

  14. Is Byrnes still MIA? He's noticeably overdue for his permanent relocation to Guam.

    My guess is that he's in Rome begging to be sent somewhere else. Anywhere else.